It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fascinating Theory of Gravity

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Real nature of space time? These are 2 different entities entirely and not to be understood as mixed in some way contrary to Einstein's erroneous GR.
Space is 3 spatial dimensions and time acts perpendicular to these 3.
Time can be removed to facilitate anti gravity, warp drives. This is basically what I gather out of this video

a reply to: NorEaster




posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Time can be removed to facilitate anti gravity, warp drives. This is basically what I gather out of this video
You can pick any two candles, light them, and chances are pretty good that one will burn more brightly than the other, for random reasons. If there's any difference at all the chances are 50% that the one in your test will be brighter than the control. So these are totally unscientific odds for proving anything.

What's worse, is that the video shows exactly the opposite of what the man is claiming. He says the candle on the machine is brighter, when it's clear to me that the other one has a much larger flame, maybe 50% larger. So not only is the candle part of the experiment completely lacking in any scientific validity, and you have failed to recognize this, but also the man appears completely delusional to be reporting the opposite of what the video shows, and you've apparently failed to notice this too and posted the video here as if it has any scientific value.

This is the type of experimental failure that peer review is intended to weed out, except with scientists it's usually a lot more subtle and they would at least have some kind of brightness meter aimed at the candle to report quantitative numbers about the candle's brightness.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster

What seems increasingly clear is that no one has bothered to ask the obvious question "What is the physical nature of space-time?", and have simply let the math lead them around as if it (on its own) can make planets and stars and galaxies behave as they do.


mbkennel
What's the difference? The physical nature of space time is what it does, and the math says exactly how much.



The difference is that for anything (in this case, an environmental medium) to physically affect an object, it must share a sub-structural property commonality with that object. Period. Both the object and the environmental medium must exist relative to one another. If one exist in a physical state, then the other must also exist in a physical state. Not necessarily as a material manifestation (based on particle structure), but still both the object and the medium must share a common being state if one is to be capable of affecting the other.

Einstein's "space-time", therefore, cannot simply be the results of math equations, or a coordinates location strategy. It must physically exist as an environment that is capable of being affected (warped, according to Einstein's own theory) by the physical material properties of an object that physically exists relative to it. It must be an aether-like medium, or else it cannot be warped, or otherwise affected by the presence of a material object as that object propagates through it as the 3 dimensional volume displacement that it must be, in order for it to physically host that object's material presence.

My question remains "What is the nature - the physical nature - of this "space-time" medium?"

Can anyone even guess?

So far, all Einstein has done is confuse the reality aspects of this issue, and pretend that the question concerning that aether composition controversy (it was a big deal when he was putting together his Relativity theories) doesn't actually mean anything. Basically, he changed the name of the medium itself, and distracted everyone with a disjointed description of a brand new property set that this alleged aether possesses.

No wonder so much inanity has emerged as a direct result of his General Relativity theory. Wormholes, a multiverse, reverse causality; so much obvious junk science. I am becoming more and more convinced that Einstein manufactured his theories of Relativity (both of them) as brilliantly crafted parodies that he knew would be embraced as functional reality explanations by the confused dominating minds that imposed their will upon the community of scientists that he'd struggled to become a member of as he was teching invention proposals at that lonely patent office. Perhaps that's why he often had that sly smile on his face when the press would photograph him?
edit on 6/4/2014 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: mbkennel




What's the difference? The physical nature of space time is what it does, and the math says exactly how much.



Why muddy a perfectly good 17th century discussion with such things as reality and math?



Depending on the sets used in a math equation, it can represent reality, or it can be complete fantasy. That's the issue with leaning on math and ignoring deductive logic and hard ramification reality if the math tells you to.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
No observe the candles consistently in different frames and it will be clear. It is about brightness and not about larger flame and you can also see that the candle on the machine is getting consumed faster judging by the shortening of the candles. Though the anti gravity part is quite convincing. A strange blue strip is also showing by the electric lights, wonder what that is
a reply to: Arbitrageur


edit on 4-6-2014 by Nochzwei because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Einstein was working to someone's agenda. he was maybe told to generate a status quo in msm that will last perpetually. So he came up with his GR a thought exercise. Yes he must have concurrently picked up a lot of ideas from others during his tenure at the swiss patent office.
a reply to: NorEaster



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Einstein was working to someone's agenda. he was maybe told to generate a status quo in msm that will last perpetually. So he came up with his GR a thought exercise. Yes he must have concurrently picked up a lot of ideas from others during his tenure at the swiss patent office.
a reply to: NorEaster



LOL seriously?

I am done with this discussion. This is ludicrous.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Einstein was working to someone's agenda. he was maybe told to generate a status quo in msm that will last perpetually. So he came up with his GR a thought exercise. Yes he must have concurrently picked up a lot of ideas from others during his tenure at the swiss patent office.
a reply to: NorEaster



LOL seriously?

I am done with this discussion. This is ludicrous.
Lol a tactical retreat from something that ought not to be discussed. Oh gosh now I get it finally.



posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei
I can understand eccentrics who try to prove their antigravity machine with the pH of tomatoes, or the brightness of candles, meaning I understand they have cognitive shortcomings or are examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I don't think it's brighter but the fact you're arguing it is means you missed my main point which is that even if it is brighter, that statistically proves absolutely nothing. You can put two candles on a tabletop in the same conditions and one may burn brighter than the other even if there is no experiment going on. Does this mean there's antigravity going on under the one that's burning brighter for no particular reason except random variation?

What I can't understand is how such absurdity manages to gain any followers.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Brighter and being consumed faster corroborate each other, don't they? So its you missing the point and besides anti gravity is being achieved, is it not? So you have failed in your argument on all counts .
So Einstein was wrong with his GR hypothesis, is it not? The video also may show light moving at greater than c.
a reply to: Arbitrageur



new topics




 
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join